Covid1984
Update
1st February 2021
In early 2020 the worlds governments told their citizens that there was a new virus at large [Coronavirus SARS – CoV – 2]
and that this virus caused a new flu like illness [Covid19]
Further, they told us that they had a way of detecting that this new virus was infecting a person, using an old test called a Polymerase Chain Reaction test [PCR]
Also that there were lots of people in all our populations, who show no symptoms and are not ill, but have tested positive for Covid19 using the PCR test. Further, that such people can infect other healthy people who are not ill with the new virus. They labelled such infected, but not ill, folk as: Asymptomatic Carriers
Finally, they told us that all this means that there was now a new Pandemic and that it was rapidly spreading around the planet and that we should all be scared stiff
So these in red above are 5 key foundational assumptions for their Covid19 narrative.
I call them foundational because, if any one of these assumptions fails then,
the whole Covid19 narrative fails
This short paper will examine the evidence for these foundational assumptions in turn:
1 Coronavirus SARS – CoV – 2
What is the evidence for the existence of the new virus?
Succinctly: there isn’t any at all!
First see here:
“Buried deep in the document, on page 39 [actually page 42], in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…” The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available… Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.
A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE”
So the US Centre for Disease Control admits that there is no isolated virus!
Second, during the “pandemic” there have been numerous Freedom of Information Requests to government and health authorities all over the world. Not one of these bodies has ever provided a document that proves that the virus has ever been isolated, not one. See this:
“FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever”
Third, more FOI info here:
What is isolation?
http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3613)
"A virus isolate is a virus isolated from an infected host. The process is called "isolation," which separates viruses from the hosts." It means that for microbiologists and virologists, taking a swab sample, which separates virus from the host, is considered as "virus isolation." This interpretation does not reflect the correct meaning and understanding of the subject of isolation. But, they imply and promote the true meaning of the process of isolation, i.e., to obtain something by extraction, purification, and identification, reflected by well-known pretty pictures of the DNA/RNA, proteins, and viruses such as a spherical body with spikes (aka coronavirus). The virologists' version of the definition is incorrect and causing the problem. Wherever one looks for the virus, one always finds a suffix with it, e.g., "virus isolate," "virus culture," "virus lysate," etc., (which are soups, mixtures or gunks), never "virus" alone; however, it is presented and promoted as pure "virus."
So nobody has any empirical evidence anywhere that the virus actually exists!
In fact, starting with the Chinese who first identified the virus DNA sequence, they all rely entirely on “computer models” to enumerate the virus DNA strand, not isolated virii
See here:
https://www.sott.net/article/443103-Only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-SARS-CoV-2-virus
“First,
in the section titled "Whole Genome Sequencing," we find
that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome
from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples
using PCR probes This means they actually looked at 37 out of the
approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the
genome of the intact virus. They
then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program,
which filled in the rest of the base pairs.
To
me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here
is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a
unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and
a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer
and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this
computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never
actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its
genetic make up to compare their samples with the actual unicorn's
hair, hooves and horn”
Computer models are NOT empirical evidence, particularly not unicorn computer models
Assumption 1 fails
2 Covid19
What is the evidence that the new virus actually causes Covid19?
Hard to credit given all the media hype and scaremongering but: there isn’t any!
All you need to do is think for yourself to see the truth because, if you do then, you will soon realise that:
If there has been no isolated virus then, there can be no proof that it causes any illness QED
For further confirmation then see here. Kochs Postulates have not been satisfied:
“About 150 years ago, scientists painstakingly constructed a set of principles that can prove whether a particular microbe is the cause of a specific disease or is just a bystander. Those three principles are known as the Koch postulates.
From all the available information, the novel coronavirus doesn’t appear to meet any of these tenets, never mind all three.
Like most human endeavours, the Koch postulates were the product of collaboration. First, Jakob Henle developed the underlying concepts, and then Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler spent decades refining them until they were published in 1890. The resulting three postulates are:
The pathogen occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances that can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease.
The causative microorganism occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite.
After being fully isolated from the body and grown in tissue culture (or cloned), it can induce the disease anew.
…..
There’s an urgent need for scientists to step up and do this conclusively with the novel coronavirus and COVID-19. But, strangely, the fire hose of scientific papers on the virus-disease dyad is only a sickly trickle on this tremendously important aspect of it.
A very straightforward and inexpensive experiment is all that’s needed to prove that the first postulate has been met.
…..
But such an experiment has never been done, or if it has been done it hasn’t been made public.
The real kicker, though, is that the third postulate – isolating and sequencing the virus and then showing it causes the disease in other organisms – has not been fulfilled either”
No proof has been publicised anywhere that Coronavirus SARS – CoV – 2 causes Covid19
Do you really think that they wouldn’t have shown us if they had any proof?
3 PCR test
What is the evidence that the PCR test can reliably identify that a person is infected with the new virus?
Let’s start with the obvious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction
“PCR amplifies a specific region of a DNA strand (the DNA target)”
So not a whole virus then. Not a good start….
But let’s get straight to the heart of the matter. The PCR test was invented by a US medical scientist called Kary Mullis who, in 1993, won 997a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his invention. Here is what Mr Mullis had to say about his test in July :
“PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with [like Covid19] was going to hurt you or anything like that“
What more is there to say? See the video of Kary Mullis saying that here:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/
This article is worth reading more fully because it raises a whole load more questions about the suitability of PCR for diagnosis, the number of amplifications for instance.
More on PCR [and also relevant to assumptions 1 and 2 above]:
“Titled “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-Cov-2 Reveals 10 Major Flaws At The Molecular and Methodological Level: Consequences For False-Positive Results,” the paper’s lead author is Dr. Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression. Several other esteemed names are associated with the paper including Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer and outspoken critic of much of the so-called science beneath the WHO’s global lockdown, masking, and school shut-down measures. ”
Finally, this is now admitted by the WHO itself:
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
“Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis”
As an aid, so not a diagnostic test then….
In summary using the PCR test to identify a “case” is close to meaningless
It is not empirical evidence of anything
Just think of all those “positive” people who do not get ill but simply return to their normal life after their isolation period ends
Assumption 3 fails
4 Asymptomatic Carriers
What is the evidence for the existence of asymptomatic carriers?
What does your common sense tell you?
Yes, you are correct, there isn’t any:
See this paper in "Nature”. Following the lockdown, the city government of Wuhan conducted a city-wide nucleic acid screening for SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
It was carried out on an impressive scale:
There were 10,652,513 eligible people aged ≥6 years in Wuhan (94.1% of the total population). The nucleic acid screening was completed in 19 days (from May 14th, 2020 to Jun 1st, 2020), and tested a total of 9,899,828 persons from the 10,652,513 eligible people (participation rate, 92.9%). Of the 9899,828 participants, 9,865,404 had no previous diagnosis of COVID-19, and 34,424 were recovered COVID-19 patients.
The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts. There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential communities.
Previous studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious, and might subsequently become symptomatic. Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2. In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”
This from a study of 9 million Chinese citizens
Assumption 4 fails
5 Pandemic
What is the evidence that we have actually experienced a Pandemic in the last 12 months?
Let’s start with the WHO, the World Health Organisation.
WHO changed it’s definition of Pandemic in 2009 in response to the Swine Flu which they also wanted to label a Pandemic.
This is what they used to say, but deleted in 2009:
“A pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears …resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness……”
Here is what they now say:
“A disease epidemic occurs when there are more cases of that disease than normal.”
See what they did there? They went from “enormous numbers of deaths” to “more cases...than normal”.
[I hold a pdf of both the before and after definitions on my pc. You can easily verify this yourself with a quick Google search]
[By the way, Swine Flu caused only 18,449 lab confirmed deaths in 2009, see Wikipedia. This out of a world population in 2009 of 6.8 billion. There were 481k lab confirmed cases]
But the clincher is the all death mortality per capita from the Office for National Statistics, ONS, see the graph below. I was born in 1950 and for most of my life I have lived with a greater risk of death than I did in 2020. For 53 of my 70 years my risk of death has been HIGHER than it was in 2020.
Enormous numbers of deaths and illness? No wonder they changed the definition because under the old definition 2020 did not show a pandemic, it was simply a bad flu season and we experience a bad flu season every few years
This pattern has been duplicated across the world. In the US there was no increase at all in all cause mortality per capita for 2020
Pandemic? What Pandemic
Assumption 5 fails
Conclusions:
Covid1984 [surely the more appropriate name?] is clearly a house built on sand.
As I said at the start then, if any one of their founding assumptions fail then,
their whole narrative fails
And all these founding assumptions do fail as I have demonstrated.
There is no empirical evidence for any one of them, so all are unproven
Over to you, what are YOU going to do about it?
Come on folks – wake up and smell the coffee
It is up to us, all of us, because:
This ends when we all say NO
